Talk:Eucalyptus tereticornis

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Wimpus in topic Misrepresentation(s) of source(s)

Misrepresentation(s) of source(s) edit

In this edit, "Smith gave it the specific epithet tereticornis from the Latin teretus ("terete", meaning circular in transverse cross-section) and cornu ("horn"), in reference to the horn-shaped bud cap." was replaced by "The specific epithet (tereticornis) is from the Latin words teres (becoming tereti- in the combined form) meaning "terete" and cornus meaning "horn", in reference to the horn-shaped operculum."
In the latter case, the text is sourced by p. 322 of Boland's et al. Forest Trees of Australia (2006). The source however writes: "Latin teretus (terete, circular in transverse cross-section, tapering or narrowly conical), cornu (horn), in reference to the opercula". This edit does seem to misrepresent the source.
However, the source is also mistaken. The original description of Smith in A Specimen of the Botany of New Holland (1893-1895, p. 41) is: "E. tereticornis, operculo conico tereti laevissimo calyce triplo longiori, umbellis lateralibus solitariis. Lid conical, round, very smooth, thrice as long as the calyx. Umbels lateral, solitary." Tereti is here the ablative case of the nominative case teres and not of the suggested form teretus. We can not refer to Boland et al. (2006) and quote something else (as that would violate Wikipedia:Verifiability "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.") Additionally, Boland et al. (2006) may be an unreliable source for etymology. Besides this etymological mistake, various other etymological errors can be found in Boland et al. (2006). However, we can not directly refer to Smith for the full etymology, as Smith does not explicitely mention that tereticornis is derived from teres and cornu. I would suggest to remove (in the near future) "from the Latin words teres (becoming tereti- in the combined form) meaning "terete" and cornus meaning "horn"" (already corrected to "cornu") as it does misrepresent the cited source, but advise against reinstating the false etymology of Boland et al. Wimpus (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply